Iggy Heringa

Hi, I'm editing a ≈40 min short film and need help regarding a timecode matter :) Since the logos for my picture-locked film are yet to be made/supplied, I wonder if it is ok, to add them at the very last stage of post-production and ignore them in my current edit? Basically the logos would be added right after color correction and sound mix and just before the DCP creation. Or should I create about 20 seconds of logo placeholder time for the beginning of my film, and insert them, once they are created? The issue with this is that I don't know how much time the logos will take up, especially since one might be animated. Also, I found the following info here: https://2pop.calarts.edu/technicalsupport/using-standard-leader/ which I intend to use: Picture start is at 01:00:00:00 00:58:30:00 – 1 minute of color bars and tone 00:59:52:00 – countdown begins 00:59:58:00 – sync pop, also called 2 pop 01:00:00:00 – your movie begins, no picture or sound should start before this Must I really use the 00:58:30:00 to 00:59:51:24 at all? Can't I just start from 00:59:52:00. Summarized questions: Can I insert the logos at the very end of the post-production pipeline (right before DCP creation) AND can I start the lead in at 00:59:52:00? Thanks in advance and hope to hear back!

Agree entirely with everything you wrote. Thanks so much for writing this out in detail ? It's crazy how many people (and some filmmakers) are still very misinformed on this topic by the way.

Agreed, I am familiar with quickly doing these conversions in my head. Including matching the appropriate apertures ?

Excellent, excellent! Thanks so much for these answers guys ? They're exactly what I wanted to hear and they confirm what I hoped to be confirmed. As stated in my original message, the author of the article I linked to has no understanding of the matter ? Some extra notes, research I did in the meantime (and that I should have probably done before my original post) : Here are some quick notes from inputting research into my pCam app: Field of view of widest existing lenses: Arri S35, Widest 8mm gives a 120 degree horizontal FOV. ARRI LF, Widest 12mm gives a 113 degree horizontal FOV. ARRI 65, Widest 21mm gives a 105 degree horizontal FOV. In other words, the widest achievable field of view on “conventional” cine lenses appears to be achievable on Super35 designed sensors. Of course the usage of such wide focal lengths is rare'ish! ? As for depth of field, the Arri 65mm 1.8 DNA lens would probably be the toughest to find an equivalent full frame or super 35 lens for, to match the depth of field. However, the 0.7 and 0.95 lenses in super35 for example should not be too far off (don’t know the exact conversion ratio from the Alexa65 sensor to super35 and full frame to calculate more precisely. Nonetheless, besides field of view and depth of field, there are generally numerous advantageous elements to the larger sensors of course (lower noise, better color depth, resolution, dynamic range, etc) which is the primary reason for using them. If I write anything incorrect, please be sure to correct ?

Hey guys, I was reading up on some old saved articles today and came across the following: https://www.indiewire.com/feature/large-format-cameras-arri-alexa-65-film-language-joker-roma-midsommar-1202179944/ In my opinion there's a ton of misinformation present in this article and my understanding of the matter fully aligns with Lewis Ward's comment at the bottom of the article stating: "Rendering of space does not change across different formats. If you use equivalent focal lengths on s35mm, Full Frame or 65mm, they will all look the same". Medium Format sensor cams with 65mm lenses have a number of advantages over more traditional combinations but they don't compress space any differently. It's all a matter of field of view. The article got me thinking deeper about 65mm and I have the following question: Isn't the biggest differentiating factor of a (Alexa) 65mm camera really the large sized sensor with the unusual wider aspect ratio of about ≈2.1:1 (as opposed to the more common 3:2 sensors)? In other words, if I understand correctly, the widest primes that cover the Alexa 65's image circle will have extra width available that traditional Super35/Full Frame would not be able to achieve, correct? And thus Alexa 65mm format has some of the horizontal compositional qualities of Anamorphic by means of spherical glass, correct? Here's a link showcasing common sensor sizes: https://www.studiodaily.com/2018/07/download-phil-hollands-digital-film-sensor-chart/ I would love for someone to simply pitch in and let me know wether my thinking on all this is correct. I have no one to talk to about this stuff other than you guys here ? Thanks so much and best wishes!!

Thanks so much for your answer and info Dom.!These two links are super helpful. I'll be going through them later today! ?

Hi David, Thank you very much for your response ? I didn't explain myself well.. Sorry. Obviously I never intended to crop into 2k and then blow that back to 2k ? Just wanted to make sure if mixing say 150% or 200% crop in 4.5k files with none-cropped-in files would present any issues at all if the sharpening and all that is done appropriately. Thanks for the 2K vs 1080p info regarding screenings and extra movie references where aspect ratio changes occur ? Also, anyone know of a convincing zoom plugin? Thanks so much!

Hi, First of all, I could not find any better place than this forum to ask these questions. I know there is an editing forum on cinematography.com but it gets barely any views. If anyone knows of a better place for me to post these questions online please let me know ? I directed a "short-feature film" (≈50min) a few months ago and we are getting closer to final cut of the offline edit (Shot on Alexa LF, K35s, 4.5 Open Gate, ProRes 4444). The film was supposed to be 30-40 minutes but it ended up longer, which unfortunately is a less advantageous running time for festivals... I have a few simple questions: 1. Though I wanted my final delivery to be 4k, it has now become 2k. Because the shoot was a tough experience (no point in writing an essay as to why) I now have to deal with fixing certain things in post. 2k is easier on vfx amongst others ;). QUESTION: How much can I zoom into a shot without the audience at a festival noticing that the image stands out as softer? Is 150% the limit? Or can I go up to 200%? I know it also depends on the length of the shot, and also that I can get away with less sharp footage if it's a very short clip. I also know that these zoomed-in shots will need some sharpening, de-noising, etc. I much hope someone with professional experience on feature films post-production could give me their opinion ? Should 150% be the max? Or is 200% fine? 2. Zoom-in effect. I know that one can add digital zooms via keyframing in post. I don't plan to do a lot of this and on-set we used a dolly for various sequences so its not like I planned to add this in post. However, there are a few moments in the film where adding a zoom in post was considered during prep or feels useful. QUESTION: Is there a plugin that very realistically emulates the zoom in and out of a cinema-zoom? I know that this slow-in-and-slow-out effect can be replicated with careful key framing but I'd ideally want something that speeds up the process or even makes it look better than what I can do. One thing I found online is this: https://nofilmschool.com/push-post-vashi-nedomanskys-premiere-pro-preset I'm sure there are other tools no? 3. Changing aspect ratios. We shot the film for 2:1 but I'm thinking of changing the aspect ratio to 1.85:1. Something I did not want to do but overall feels better. And there's also this other thought that I've been thinking of... QUESTION: Could you guys recommend films that change aspect ratios throughout the film. I know of The Grand Budapest Hotel/The French Dispatch and a few others but my online research can't find many other good examples. Obviously I don't want my aspect ratio to change every 2 minutes (though for a more experimental film this could be great) but I wonder how far I could go with this, which is why I'm seeking out references. Not to copy but be inspired by at best and to know what's out there! Really hope someone can help me out here and wishing you all a great Wednesday! ?

No problemo at all ? Have a great upcoming week and all the best too!

Haha. It's a matter of perspective Satsuki! ? Obviously, that perfect light meter does not exist, yet and your sarcasm is unnecessary here because I truly believe that there's a market here for other brands to take on Sekonic and provide something that is better thought out. I just wished the 858D would have at least met my expectation of being a decently designed tool. It of course does need to be perfect. Nothing is. It's fine if some features are missing. However, when essential stuff is implemented poorly, it's inexcusable. What has Sekonic done since 2017 and why did they release a product that feels so unfinished for cinematographers. I'm done complaining for the next weeks!

Hey Satsuki, I have to respectfully disagree :) Some multi-tools are better than others. For an example of a more successful one, take the very successful Audio Devices Mixpre field recorders. These are also, amongst others, audio interfaces! In both instances they are perfectly designed. Pretty much every feature from the hardware & circuitry that any user would ever want is implemented in the software. Nothing is an afterthought. The software interface is also incredible. The designers at Audio Devices are geniuses. Also, what about RGB fixtures? To a degree these could also be seen as multi-tools. Imagine that one of the brands would release a RGB fixture where the dimming capabilities in Bi-Color mode were crippled, whereas all works as it should in RGB. This Bi-Color dimming capability could have easily been implemented, but the designers just didn't do it. An afterthought. In this consumer world of competing products, I would expect a brand with as much name recognition as Sekonic to put in a little more effort into designing their products. Instead it seems more of the money is going to the marketing department. My feeling is that the Sekonics are much more geared towards photographers. It's absolutely ridiculous that a $599 light meter is so average with its lux/footcandle readings. Unless I'm mistaken, the sensitivity is there for it to be much better in this regard. And, as I said earlier, it would probably take just a day (max!) for any half competent person in this field to write the code into a new firmware. If Sekonic would pay me, I'd adjust the menu system and add features to make the whole experience of using the light meter faster, more efficient, less cluttered and more professional. Cinematographers especially, would be happy :) So yeah, the 858D is a workable tool but a poorly designed one (as of 01/17/2021)

Yes, it's a multitool but it could have been a perfect one. What's bothersome is that I believe all the necessary tech is present in the Sekonic but it feels like the developers where to lazy (for lack of a better term) to try and make it perfect. It's as if the developers of the Sekonic 858D ran a marathon designing it, and suddenly stopped 30 minutes before the finish line. Not because of exhaustion but due to loss of interest. Stoically speaking that's fine. However, for us users, the users of the tool, it's mega frustrating. I felt for a while like writing a long email to Sekonic with how to improve the meter's menu system and options. Unfortunately, based on previous experience of a simple stock inventory inquiry of this meter (it was out of stock for while) to which they never replied, I won't bother. I thought that in buying the Sekonic I would not need to resort to the Spectra as much anymore. Thank god I have Godox flashes to use this with, otherwise I would have returned this item. Hopefully Sekonic will improve this meter. Or a competing product will appear.

Hey Satsuki, thx for your reply. I'm afraid the same is true for the 858D-U meter, unless someone proves me wrong. It's so odd from a business point of view that Sekonic would have such a function be an afterthought. Especially since it (and other features) would be so simple to implement as long as they'd care to pay someone competent to do that work. Though they market the Sekonic for Cinematographers and Photographers, it seems there are much less afterthoughts for the latter. This is so frustrating. I don't think the Lux/Footcandle reading on the 858D are exact enough for my doings.

I'll first ask a question: Is the Sekonic 858D-U more sensitive, equally sensitive, or less sensitive to the Spectra Cine IV? Metering in Lux or Foot-candles the 858D-U seems to round the numbers much more. Sometimes it'll round by 50 or 100lux whereas the Spectra Cine has much more decimal information. What the hell? Is there a setting I need to change on the Sekonic? I've gone through the menus many times and have read the manual and can't find anything. It's supposedly more sensitive according to the specs on B&H. Is this marketing crap? There's some things I love about this Sekonic (that I just purchased) but also many things that disappoint... The touch interface and overall physical design of the meter is fantastic. I love the spot meter! They should have added one more custom key though. However the software should have been so much better. Especially by 2021! There's so many things that spring to mind when using this meter where I think "this could have been done better" or "so this meter came out in 2017 and the software is this limited" or "what were they thinking?". It's great to have a big touch sensitive screen but why are there so many common-sense-features that so many of us would benefit from instantly – as well as the sales of sekonic ! – if these were implemented. Worse, these are features that could be simply added by whoever is the software designer at Sekonic. It's simple stuff! Quite disappointed really ? Anyhow, could someone let me know where the setting is to make the Sekonic stop rounding up the Lux/Footcandles in the way that it does on factory content?

Hi Kyle, Thx so much for your help and sorry for the late reply. I actually did not think of getting an Art-Net router but thx to your input and some research it seems like a necessity. Truth be told doing DMX research is a much more complex task than I had envisioned. As far as the Enttec is concerned is there any reason why I should buy that instead of the cheaper DMXking https://www.amazon.com/DMXking-eDMX1-Ethernet-Adapter-3-Pin/dp/B00TDH2DBA/ ? Fortunately there's clones of the Donner Wireless DMX system that have 5 pins so I'll go for one of those and avoid even more (damn) adapters ? Am I correct to interpret (based on checking the specs) that this American DJ Uni Pak II you recommend can convert any none-DMX light to a DMX channel? That would certainly be interesting for my none dmx lights... Thx again so much for your help and get back whenever you have a moment. Kind greetings!

I sure shall! ?

Excellent, thx so much for that answer! So I guess I'm good to go then with the Donner option. For the time being I'll have to accept dealing with Luminair too. Hopefully future updates will improve it. Oh and by the way, great work on your website! ?

Hey guys, I have two questions regarding stuff I want to hopefully get working, and I much hope someone has some experience to share on this :) The first scenario revolves around getting lights with DMX to connect to a wireless network. The second is to control none dmx lights wirelessly. What's kind of paramount for me is to see if this can be done on the cheap. Scenario 1: making DMX lights controllable via 2.4G and hopefully the luminair app So there are various led lights on the market currently ( Aputure, Godox in the lower price segment and much more expensive fixture above that) which feature a DMX port (either Ethernet, XLR or both). In my search for figuring out how to potentially be able to get these to be controllable via wifi (and not through their native apps) found specific typse of Wireless DMX sets on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/CHINLY-Charging-Wireless-Receiver-Transmitter/dp/B07CQ9RMCX/ or https://www.amazon.com/Donner-Wireless-Receiver-Indicators-Transmitter/dp/B00L25ZNP4/ These look like the exact same products but with different branding. Anyhow, if I combine the wireless transmitter of these sets with the transmitter on cheap portable router of some kind and establish a network, for example: https://www.amazon.com/TP-Link-Wireless-Travel-Router-TL-WR902AC/dp/B01N5RCZQH or even https://www.amazon.com/RAVPower-FileHub-Wireless-Portable-Transfer/dp/B07P5QDQ1B/ Would I then be able to control these lights via Luminair? How difficult would this be to setup? Unfortunately, I find the information online about how to setup the various competing Wireless DMX apps quite bewildering. And it all looks super expensive :( For certain lights I imagine this kind of adapter might come out handy too: DMX to RJ45 cable: https://www.amazon.com/SiYear-XLRJ45-Adapter-Cable-XLR-Converter/dp/B07V2M1HTQ Scenario 2: making None-DMX lights wirelessly controllable I thought this scenario was a no go until I saw the following item on amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Palawell-Waterproof-Outdoor-Wireless-Dimmable/dp/B07H4KW7RK/ This should work with pro video Led lights as long as they are underneath the max rated Watts, right? I may very well come across a little stupid with these questions, but I don't mind. I just hope that no one regrets reading through the text though ;) Thx in advance and kind greetings! :D

Does any one here know how to switch the Spectra IV light meter to a factory mode so I can re-calibrate it? I got one from Ebay, which is as good as new, but the metering is completely off and I Really would not enjoy sending this in to spectra to have them re-calibrate it since I've heard they charge way too much money for thast. I assume this is something that I could easily do myself if I would have another correctly calibrated meter at hand. Even if I'd calibrate it according to the sunny 16 rule, the metering would be be better than what it's showing right now... ...I really hope the calibration isn't done with some "special in-house proprietary cable device machine/computer thing" that only exists at the spectra labs.... If somebody knows something, anything, please let me know :))

Hey Michael, Thank you very much for that tip, makes total sense. If you have any extra thoughts to add, def. let me know ;)

I’ll be shooting my first narrative short film, as a DP, upcoming weekend and have researched quite extensively all the options available concerning how to make the lighting more symbiotic with the story. Let me first quickly describe the location, gear and setups and then follow that with a short bullet point list of thoughts and questions. If anyone has the time to help out I’d be super grateful!! Location:Everything in this short film will be shot in one small bathroom that’s 9.9 feet wide, 4 feet deep and about 10 feet high. Please check the attachment I’ve added for a bird’s eye view of the location. In a sense the size of the location is very compromised but that can also lead to creative ideas, as well as some cool shots, of which I have devised quite a few. Light motivation:my intent is to simulate light coming from a window off screen, and facing the actor who’s seated in profile to it at the opposite side of the room. I intend to create three main lighting setups. One for early afternoon, a second for Sunset and a third for Night. Lighting gear: Aputure 300D (2x), Westcott Flex 1x1 daylight (3x), a small powerful mini led light (for accents) and all form of diffusions and gels. I intend to rent out the two Aputure 300D lightsas a substitute for Joker 400 HMI lamps. Advantages of the Aputures are lower heat emission, size and weight, which will come in handy in the tight space. My camera operator owns the Westcott Flex 1x1 lights, nice! Lighting usage: For both the early afternoon and daylight setups I intend to create two sources of light. The first source, an ambient soft source light, simulating a window and facing the actor sitting at the other side of the room in the bathtub. I intend this light to provide a good exposure level (about T2.8) and it's kelvin rating, in relation to the camera white balance, will be dependent on the setup (wether noon, sunset or night). I'll intend to either use the Aputure 300d in a soft box with honeycomb grid here, or, alternatively bounce the 300d off of the bathroom's (slightly beige’ish) white wall opposite to the actor. As a third option I can attach all the Westcott Flex lights together and simulate the window ambient light that way. For the bounced and westcott flex light options there might be a lot of spill and I’ll take care of that through flagging. The second source will be a spot light. I intend to simulate the sunlight at sunset. As though the sun is casting light through the window frame and onto the subject in the bathtub. My intent is to create a cookie with the use of Cinefoil and simulate the window frame that way. I also intend to use it similarly for the night setup but simulating outside sodium vapour street lights. Especially with night setup I’ll play around with creating interesting shadows and shafts of light. So these would be my two main lights sources for the three setups. In between the lights and for many of the tighter shots I will most probably add diffusion and maybe bring in some extra (westcott) light for some extra punch/contrast or accent where needed. Oh, and as for the noon setup will however only feature the soft light from one Aputure 300d because theoretically there’s no sun coming through the window at that time of the day. I could cheat a little and strike some light on to the floor but I think that’d be wrong. Right? I’ve also thought for a while of adding a practical somewherein this bathroom but unfortunately, set design wise, there doesn’t seem to be any feasible location for it without it looking out of place or forced. A bare-bulb hanging overhead being the only (none original) option. Camera gear “The Risky business and how I plan to deal with it ". As far as camera gear is concerned I have decided to use what I have and make the best of it. Ideally, I’d prefer shooting Prores 4444/RAW on an Arri or Red but for this shoot I’m going to use tiny tools, both figuratively and literally speaking. One big advantage though is that their size will make things more manageable in our tiny bathroom location. I intend to shoot on the sony a6500 mostly (and a little bit of a7s) connected to an Atomos Ninja Flame to record in Prores 422.Most importantly I’ll have access to its essential waveform monitoring tool as well as the handy False Color and extended zebra functions. Also, if I decide to shoot SLOG2,I will be working with a contrasty LUT that we will create on set for each of our key shots for our 3 lighting setups (noon, sunset and night). These LUTS will be my main cross reference for making sure that the look is conserved between the different shot setups. Basically my idea is to have everything lit as well as possible in-camera so the colour correction business of matching shots in post production will not be compromised too much by the sub-par 8 bit 4:2:0 sony compression. There’s a side of me that’s still considering wether or not to shoot in Cine4 Picture Profileinstead. I’ve never shot green screen sequences on the Sony’s in SLOG before and keying them with a Hypergama Cine4 type of profile should be easier on the post side of things. I’ll be doing some testing on Thursday, this concerning. Anycase I want to stick to one picture profile and not fuss around too much and I think it’ll be SLOG2 (on the a6500 at ISO800 for most of the shots). Lenses: Contax Zeiss line mostly. Maybe I’ll use my Aps-c sigma’s 16 and 30 F1.4’s for the few situations where the follow focussing will be tricky because of space issues, and I need to resort to autofocus. If this happens I’ll probably throw a 1/4 Black Mist Pro on the Sigma’s to soften them somewhat and hope that they’ll match well enough to the Contax lenses. This mix-matching is also something that I’ll be testing out tomorrow. Ok, so that’s the barebones info of my setup more or less. Here are the bullet point questions/thoughs: The biggest issue that I’m worried about with lighting concerns a wide shot of the actor sitting in the bathtub. Here the ambient replicated window light will hit him head on and the lighting will thus be of a flat broad type. He’ll be seated in profile to the light (which is good for all the other shots that I have planned) but the camera in this wide shot will be oriented in the same direction as the lights, creating the flat look. Fortunately this specific shot will not feature much at all but I’m wondering wether it’d be ok to cheat and create more of an ambient bounce off of the ceiling/beadboard here, to create top lighting instead... I can definitely try this on set and see for myself - and will probably do it if I have the time (so I can learn from seeing it with my own eyes) - but I may quite well not have time to do this and therefor, your experience here would be highly appreciated :) Would changing the natural motivation of the light for this shot, by adding some ceiling top light and maybe removing some of the motivated window light be an accepted cheat? Most of the other shots I have planned will tighter framings and insert shots which will mostly be of a side or 3/4 lighting style. Not much backlighting will be possible unfortunately because there’s no motivation for it and room for it (the actor will be sitting right again the wall). Kelvin wise for the three setups, my initial thinking goes like this. Noon setup: Ambient Aputure light set to 5500K. Camera to 5200K. Sunset setup:Ambient Aputure light CTB gelled to about 6000K. Sunset cookie Aputure 300d gelled to 3200. Camera set to 5000K. Night Scene setup: Ambient aputure set to somewhere around 5000-6000. Aputure cookie setup gelled to 2800 (or gelled less intensively and bounced into unbleached muslin). Camera set to 3200K. I will definitely be adjusting these kelvin ratios a bit so it looks natural. This is something I need to read up on a little more or just gain knowledge for, through experience. Please warn me though if you think I’m looking at this completely wrong. What about the Aputure 300d lights? Do you think these are a good fit for the job? From the output ratings it seems as though their output should be more than enough. Maybe I won’t even use them to their full capacity. Although, I intend to use thicker diffusion for some of the closer shots of the actor, so they may very well serve their purpose. I think Aputure 120d lights would be too risky/soft even for this small location. I don’t have that much experience yet, so maybe I’m wrong. Nonetheless, there will be some macro shots where I will want to close down the aperture quite a bit, as well as some higher frame rate shots too, so I think even if the 300D’s are way too powerful for some shots (the wide and MCU’s), they should come out very handy for the specialised ones at least. Another reason why I’ve gone for the Aputure 300d’s is that according to the specs they have (with the fresnel attachmentat 0.5m) a lux rating of around 140000. This is more or less the same intensity of the sun, which is something that I want to conserve and not tone down. This way the light intensity will feel more realistic, than if I were to use a less powerful light. Correct me if I’m wrong here. This is a presumption of mine and I am not that experienced yet! What do you guys think of shooting on the a6500/a7s and of trying to nail the shot as much in the can as possible? Do you think I’m shooting myself in the foot here with the 8bit compression? Can it be done? Or would you strongly advice against it? If you do advise against , the only feasible alternative I can see myself going for (budget and size wise) is a Blackmagic Production Cinema Camera. But that camera comes with its own share of woes ( ISO 400 to prevent banding noise traumas would be the only sensible option). I intend to also shoot some (slightly) submerged underwater setups with a waterproof underwater casing, something like this: https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwjRjLvBjO7cAhXYhLMKHfRtB7AYABAMGgJxbg&sig=AOD64_3UGnYLEaZDeE2wftdtnYEh6cc7wg&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwiA2bTBjO7cAhUEmeAKHZYcAOcQ9aACCEQ&adurl= I have never shot underwater scenes. Is there anything that you guys can warn me about? I know the focussing will be different because of light diffraction. Will the light (kelvin) quality change? I'm guessing the filters needed for underwater shooting only apply to outdoor situation but maybe I’m wrong. Do you advise recording a x-rite type of colour board at the beginning of each first shot of each new shot setup? Snoot for the aputure 300d. Would you recommend I get such a bowens mount snoot for the 300D?https://www.amazon.com/SUPON-Honeycomb-Speedlight-Photography-Moonlights/dp/B06X92L878/ref=sr_1_7?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1533655510&sr=1-7&keywords=snoot I feel I can just as replicate the same snoot effect with a Cinefoil. If there’s some reason why this would be more useful for replicating the sun through window frame effect, definitely let me know. That’s it I think; for now at least. It would be fantastic if someone with more experience could pitch in. I have much more experience as a director, editor, videographer and even composer than as a DP. However, I’m truly fascinated by this field and I really enjoy dipping my toes in it a bit. Really hoping they won’t get burnt too much this weekend... Thanks for reading :)